Obama’s U.N. Speech Hits and Misses the Mark

“You’ve got to be able to say, if you believe in Islam, that I believe in a God and a prophet strong enough to withstand the criticisms of petty, narrow-minded, mean-spirited people, I believe that the cultural crassness I abhor will, in the end, fall before the values that I exalt,” Clinton said.

One positive part of Obama’s speech was his admission that the Iranian regime follows a “violent and unaccountable ideology” that cannot be handled with a policy of containment.

“Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty,” Obama said.

This is a different tone than the one Obama took when he offered his “outstretched hand” to Iran upon taking office. This is a positive development but the Iranian regime may dismiss it as the political maneuvering of a president seeking re-election. The consistent statements from administration officials warning about the perils of an Israeli strike on Iran are more likely to impact the calculations of the Iranian regime than the words of a single speech less than two months before an election.

The acknowledgement that the Iranian regime is guided by a dangerous ideology is particularly significant because Obama has long been part of the school of thought that believes that the West’s enemies are mostly responding to policy disputes instead of the demands of a radical ideology.

In a little-noticed interview in May 2008, he said that Hamas and Hezbollah must be shown “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims” (emphasis mine) but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that.”

He explained his belief that the behavior of Hamas and Hezbollah could be changed. “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations,” Obama said back then.

Meanwhile, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney focused on the ideological challenge in his speech at the Clinton Global Initiative. He said that foreign aid must be “focused on developing the institutions of liberty, the rule of law, and property rights.”

On his campaign website, Romney says he’ll appoint a single regional director and consolidate all efforts related to the Middle East under the director’s authority in order to project soft power. The goal would be to “advance the values of representative government, economic opportunity, and human rights, and opposing any extension of Iranian or jihadist influence. “

Egyptian President Morsi and Iranian President Ahmadinejad speak on Wednesday. The importance of understanding the true Islamist ideology will be on full display, and don’t be surprised if they boast that the U.S. agrees with them about the danger of “Islamophobia.”

Ryan Mauro is a fellow with the Clarionproject.org, the founder of WorldThreats.com and a frequent national security analyst for Fox News Channel. He can be contacted at ryanmauro1986@gmail.com.

kateyleigh

Glad to hear you saw it. I re-read those lines several times, and didn't think it made sense.

objectivefactsmatter

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible…"

Whoops!!! The future must not belong to those who slander Islam? Can it be more obvious that even if it came down to them or us (and that is what they want to create, a situation that ends in destruction), he's still on their side. "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" means he can foresee the threat to Islam (the facts) but won't let it happen if he has anything to say. It "must not" happen according to Obama. His following words speak only about remaining credible (tactics). So he has unmitigated support for Islam no matter how embarrassing the facts are. He must suppress the facts to avoid hurt feelings rather than allowing people to hear the truth.

Also, technically, I slander Islam and it's non-prophet every day. I think my chances of winning are very good, and I count my partners as all those who don't want to be enslaved.

tagalog

In order to engage in slander, you have to say false things and publish them to others.

objectivefactsmatter

"In order to engage in slander, you have to say false things and publish them to others."

Correction: "technically, I *can be accused of* slandering Islam and it's non-prophet every day. I think my chances of winning (proving innocence) are very good, and I count my partners as all those who don't want to be enslaved.

tagalog

You said, "Also, technically, I slander Islam and it's (sic) non-prophet every day." You didn't say anything about being ACCUSED of slander. You claimed you engage in slander.

You would win because what you say is probably true. That was the point of my comment. Hint: it was supportive of your statements.

Also, slander is a form of defamation of character. Islam would have to prove that it has a character that can be defamed.

objectivefactsmatter

"You said, "Also, technically, I slander Islam and it's (sic) non-prophet every day." You didn't say anything about being ACCUSED of slander. You claimed you engage in slander."

Yes, that is why I corrected it.

"You would win because what you say is probably true. That was the point of my comment. Hint: it was supportive of your statements."

Um, yes I know.

"Also, slander is a form of defamation of character. Islam would have to prove that it has a character that can be defamed. "

They would argue that their non-prophet has a character that needs to be defended. Remember, they don't actually want to employ Western values and laws, they want to cloak Sharia in disguise until they can enforce it openly. They would never for example actually show up in a US court trying to sue unless they could win. Most of their rhetoric is employed to deceive Westerners in to not resisting. Please let them decide the limits of free speech and not as many people get hurt.

objectivefactsmatter

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims,” President Obama said."

Never ending moral equivalence. This statement and so many from the left and sleepy others implies strongly that the mere existence of the video in question is morally equivalent to burning churches and murder. We're all equally at fault and deserved to be condemned by the mouth of Obama and some times his spokesmen too.

Appeasers never win.

oldtimer

"..those who slander the prophet…" I thought "slander" was lying. Well, what else is expected from 0, he "slanders
those who opose him every day.

objectivefactsmatter

Thanks to you and tagalog, I realized this is yet another example of Obama "the Christian" making value judgments that Islam is in fact correct. Islam is either God's correction sent to all others, or it is a huge lie. No Christian can claim to believe Islam and remain a Christian, unless they are saying "Christian" in an Islamic sense.

The array of taqiyya lies produced by Muslims includes the statement that Christians can also be Muslims. What they mean when they say this is that Islam taught Christians once followed Islam and they are following *that* Christianity. Of course there is absolutely no evidence to support this, and mountains of evidence to prove that Christ is recorded accurately from his birth to this day. Not that there are no dissenters, but there is no evidence at all that Christ had anything to do with Islam and there is no evidence that Islam existed before Mohammed had his nightmare visions and fantastic lies about history. There are mountains of evidence that Islamic historical claims are completely wrong.

Whether any individual wants to accept that is a personal decision, but calling oneself Christian while disparaging the Bible and constantly affirming the authenticity and validity of the Islamic texts is anti-Christian.

Islam is explicitly anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. It has more hate for Jews, but it attacks Christian and Jewish theology with equal vigor in its canon of texts.

waldemar

Good post, with one caveat: What Mr.Mauro means by "Islamists?" And what is the difference between Islamists, Radical Muslims and simply Muslims? Am afraid without clearing this confusion up we will fail fighting this evil. For one, I agree with Mr.Ergodan, the Turkish Prime Minister: "There is only one Islam."

objectivefactsmatter

"Good post, with one caveat: What Mr.Mauro means by "Islamists?" And what is the difference between Islamists, Radical Muslims and simply Muslims?"

The terms used to distinguish between fundamental Muslims and modern Islamic supremacists seem to be inspired by the hope that reformers can claim to be the standard bearers known as "Muslims" without qualification, and the "Islamists," radicals etc. will be marginalized by these derogatory terms. Talk about projecting. These deceptions only serve to hurt non-Muslims while assisting taqiyya efforts.

Mike

by the testimony of the koran there is only one kind of muslim, all muslims are radical, your either in or out, there is no such thing as a moderate muslim. Its funny to hear muslims say that they are against violence but stand for the koean. The koran is a violent book and is full of influences to kill jews and christians. The world will be better off when the God of Abraham destroys this evil bunch.

waldemar

thanks, Mike,

youngblood360

The Bible is a lot more violent than the Koran my friend. Muslims are for the most part a peaceful people; the Muslim faith teaches non-violent discourse. Islamic radicals are a very small part of the Muslim faith just as the fundamentalist Christians are a small part of Christianity. I am Jewish and I have 3 very close friends who are Muslim; our conversations are lively and we debate our differences all the time. However, we love each other and would do anything to help if one or all of us needs support. It's really too bad that the only face people see on the Muslim faith are the radicals. It's also really shameful that people can't really think for themselves and see the difference.

Mike

sorry youngblood but I just don't agree with your acessment of our bible. Bible says turn the other cheek and Jesus never called for war or killing of the infidel. Sure there are many hot tempered christians but I know of none that call for blood. I'm glad you have friends that are muslims and I know of one non-violent muslim myself but they still remain loyal to the koran. What about the versus in the sura which says not to take christians/jews as friends? If we don't see the difference that's because the difference is not shown. That's not our fault!

PhillipGaley

Thanks, Mike,

And, "their faith"? The Moslem is taught to live not by faith nor in faith, but in enforced patterns of behavior. And he dies equally—before taking the plunge into death—having no sense of surety that, his sins are forgiven, . . . so, . . . I would marvel to know whence doth Pres. Clinton generate statements of doctrine from which to base his ideas of "their faith", . . . but, . . . really, . . . no, . . . I would not marvel; for, our so-called leaders are simply comical—Carter and Clinton having led the parade for the damned, . . .

objectivefactsmatter

"by the testimony of the koran there is only one kind of muslim, all muslims are radical, your either in or out, there is no such thing as a moderate muslim."

Well, for once, I agree with you. I've been advocating for a "separation of mosque and state" for years, in my debates with muslims. The problem is, this is antithetical to Sharia and islam. they've told me this themselves. And that's why we see so many "islamic republic of blah blah blah" in the middle-east. Without a reformation ala the one the west had with Christianity, there can never be a "separation of mosque and state". And since islam is the "eternal, unchanging word of "god", a reformation is just as impossible.

Sunbeam

Nothing is impossible if the people wish. I believe it is the ruling government that refuses them this mandate. This is the only hindrances that bars them from being free from this tyrannical rule. Their government fears a split within the people that would caused a revolt against its rule. When mosque and state combines, they rule better with power, vested from within it, that no one should apostate but be united as one people under one rule. That's how a Muslim state exist. The government is the sole entity and then its citizens.

objectivefactsmatter

"Nothing is impossible if the people wish"

Wish to be united around the truth, justice and the American way. Islam would have no chance at all if that were the case. Thank the Soviet loyalists for the decay that allowed Islamic supremacists to walk in and start to wreak so much havoc while being so physically impotent around the globe as a group.

"I believe it is the ruling government that refuses them this mandate."

But they do have the support of enough people to rule this way.

"When mosque and state combines, they rule better with power, vested from within it, that no one should apostate but be united as one people under one rule. That's how a Muslim state exist. The government is the sole entity and then its citizens."

It's never been separate. The mosques in the USA and elsewhere outside of Islamic realms represent states within other states, or 5th columns. They should be treated as embassies if approved and closed if found to be out of compliance. No mosque should ever be treated as a "house of worship" as if they don't worship a God that hates all non-Sharia sovereigns. This is treason.

Andy

For Obama that was a big step and it was a step that was forced on him because of the election. He became aware of what the majority of Americans feel about this issue. He wouldn't have gone this far if not for the election. And if he wins the election then God help us all.

waldemar

@Schlomotion: It is not enough to separate Islam from the state. It has to be separated from humanity.

"Mohammedanism is more deadly to the man, than rabis is to the dog." (Sir Wisnton).

Coptic John

“The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt.” Funny, since when you care about Copts HUSSEIN? Where have you been when churches burned and Copts killed? I remember in Maspero when more than 20 Copts killed in the hands of Army forces and Muslims riff -raff, you called the Copts to "Show Restraint"!! Putting the victims in the same scale with their killers http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/10/obama-cal…
… And guess what!! You helped their killer to have the FUTURE of them, ARE YOU SCHIZO OR SOMETHING
“For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulcher; they flatter with their tongue. Destroy them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against you” Psalms 5:9-10

youngblood360

The people commenting here are of the lowest common denominator. If the world is to be at peace, all countries and religions will need to be accepted and tolerated. The President could not have spoken more eloquently about the need for tolerance in the Middle East or the need to protect free speech in the United States. It is imperative that if we are to win the hearts and minds of other faiths and countries that we respect them. However, with some of the comments here it is evident why the rest of the world view Americans as ignorant, uneducated, xenophobic people. Actually, a lot of the comments are shameful and bring shame to the United States. I applaud our President for taking the high road and reaching out to the Middle East in peace rather than starting more wars. We can not blow up all the countries that don't agree with us; we must find a way to reach common ground and in the process we will find peace.

JoJoJams

Yeah? How about you research on the Barbary wars, before there ever was an israel, and before America even did ANYTHING on the world scene to muslims. Looks at the response that Thomas Jefferson got when, in trying this nice diplomacy thing, he had asked why they felt it was their (the muslims….) right to rob our merchant ships and enslave our people. Seriously. Look it up for yourself and see what was told to Thomas Jefferson. I don't care how many "nice" muslim friends you have – I have a few myself – but your anetcdotal evidence in know way is informative of what islam preaches, teaches, and is about. The best I can say about you is you're very naive. And you know what? I guarantee you your muslim friends would turn on you in a heartbeat, if their fellow muslims around you all started to riot. Guarnteed – because I see history – and judge a man (or religion) by its fruits.

trickyblain

If you research specific Barbary Pirates, you'll find that the majority and most notorious of the Corsairs were European renegades (privateers).

RiverFred

youngblood, obviously you know nothing about Islam, Islam does not accept and or tolerate other religions.
Iran will start a nuclear war in the belief that the12th hidden imam will reappear and convert the world to Islam. Wake up!

Mike

Youngblood, you are calling me of the lowest common denominator and then asking me to agree to be peaceful with you? I would like to be peaceful with everybody but like I was saying earlier that not all religions want to be peaceful and call for my death because I'm not in accordance with them. Wake up!

Anonymous

Why on earth should westerners respect a "culture" which sees fit to stone adulterous women, flog miscreants, amputate the limbs of those who steal, engage in FGM, hang homosexuals, and commit suicide terrorism? You cannot be seriously suggesting that such cultures deserve our "respect." They are worthy of our contempt. (And, no this does not instantly suggest "a war" — obviously there are alternatives — it is not, as you falsely allege, a dilemma between either accepting barbarism or going to war. We also have the option of disengaging.)

objectivefactsmatter

"The people commenting here are of the lowest common denominator. If the world is to be at peace, all countries and religions will need to be accepted and tolerated."

Your views are too idealistic to be rational. Sovereignty is defined as possessing a monopoly on judicial violence. Wars are to nations what the police force is to maintain the peace within a sovereign state. To declare that we must tolerate radical war-making regimes is like saying that we must not employ police officers or we might get violent criminals as a result.

Views like yours could only develop because the US hegemony was so successful in creating relatively peaceful times that by withdrawing from the facts of the world and its history allows you to believe pleasing lies about utopian futures that can't exist in reality.

Put simply, your words indicate that you are delusional.

"The President could not have spoken more eloquently about the need for tolerance in the Middle East or the need to protect free speech in the United States."

We need more than eloquence. We need reality and loyalty to our nation and its foundations that made it great.

"It is imperative that if we are to win the hearts and minds of other faiths and countries that we respect them."

Really? Who told you this? Why do we need weapons if being nice can do the job, as if that isn't tried every day, year in and year out? We give so much that we can't even publicize most of it. Why do you suppose that is?

"However, with some of the comments here it is evident why the rest of the world view Americans as ignorant, uneducated, xenophobic people."

That in fact describes your views. How others see those who tell the truth is not the primary concern of those concerned about propagating it. Calling someone xenophobic for trying to teach facts that refute lies, that is really the fundamental problem. Where is your tolerance for learning when you are wrong? You are intolerant of facts! You see, the kind of tolerance you envision doesn't truly exist. You display hypocrisy in attacking people here. Talk like that to a Muslim within striking distance of a sword or knife and see what happens. You can't imagine that? Go live somewhere beyond your cushy suburb and see what it takes to make Muslims feel happy about how you live.

"Actually, a lot of the comments are shameful and bring shame to the United States."

Like yours.

"I applaud our President for taking the high road and reaching out to the Middle East in peace rather than starting more wars. We can not blow up all the countries that don't agree with us; we must find a way to reach common ground and in the process we will find peace. "

What history courses have you ever taken? How old are you?

Mike

The seperation of islam from all society sounds good to me!!

yusee89

WORDING is so important. Here is Obama’s speech with the words rearranged, I think it’s better, any thoughts? (Ok I added one word; ridiculed)
The future must not belong to those who slander Jesus Christ; or those who deny the Holocaust; or destroy churches. Yet to be credible, those who condemn those things must also condemn the hate we see when the prophet of Islam is ridiculed. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims,”

"The future must not belong to those who disagree with the Prophet of Islam.” President Obama. I clarified the word slander in his speech because in Islam the Quran is the truth and anything else is slander.

Kitty

Yeah, how is the world going to have peace if they are out to kill us? Not that I think true Peace will reign until Jesus comes back, but…you get the picture.

LindaRivera

In Obama’s UN speech, Obama declared: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

One blogger has stated about Obama’s declaration: “I consider that statement a death threat to me and all anti-Islam
bloggers, authors, and activists by the President of the United States…” End of quote.

When DECEIVER, Barack Hussein Obama declared: “The future
must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” he meant the future must not belong to those who tell the TRUTH about Islam.

Barbaric mass murderer and huge slave trader, founder of Islam,
Mohammad, who married a six year old child when he was in his fifties,
declared: WAR IS DECEPTION.

U.S. ruling elites spit on the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights,
our patriotism to America and on the graves of every brave hero who
fought and died in the Second World War so that we could live in FREEDOM
and SAFETY. And they spit on the graves of the European heroes who
centuries ago, fought desperate battles to stop the cruel, barbaric
Muslim invaders.

The Obama-Clinton administration are eager to wage WAR against hated
non-Muslim infidels, especially those who tell the TRUTH about Islam.

While I do realize that the Obama crowd views the U.S. Constitution only as suitable for use as only toilet paper or kindling, It should be noted that Obama tried to repeal the First Amendment in his speech at the UN the other day.
For those of you in government jobs or in academia, the First Amendment, in part, states: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of;…". Obama would have us believe that the "prophet of islam" is the established sacrosanct demigod who is free of comment upon, or criticism from, Americans. According to some religious views held by some American citizens, Mr Obama, you may have the opportunity to discuss this with the prophet of islam-in a warm afterlife location.

Elliott

youngblood360 states: "I am Jewish and I have 3 very close friends who are Muslim; our conversations are lively and we debate our differences all the time."
Your comment begs quite a few questions (I'll start with just two):
1. Where do you live?
2. Are the Muslims in your area a minority (i.e < say 10%)?
Hope you will respond with some answers.
Regards and "Chag Sameach"!!!

objectivefactsmatter

Teach him what taqiyya means.

Having said that, there are many good Muslims, maybe even the majority but they would be considered apostate if it was revealed that their goodness was not derived from a sincere policy of taqiyya.

Sorry,youngblood360. The Muslim World has NEVER practiced any tolerance towards other religions or nations,including America. Why don't read a little more history before you post another silly comment?

chowching259

Imams are heavily rewarded each time their members threaten the American embassy. A pacifier soon arrives in the form of a suitcase full of hundred dollar bills. But in reality Muslims care little about Muhammad’s reputation, they only care about the free goat meat and camels milk they get from the rewarded Imam.

objectivefactsmatter

" But in reality Muslims care little about Muhammad’s reputation, they only care about the free goat meat and camels milk they get from the rewarded Imam. "

Those are the moderates you are talking about. The ones that can be outbid by Western influence and funds.

objectivefactsmatter

"Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi said at the Clinton Global Initiative that “physical violence is not the only form of violence” in justifying blasphemy laws."

Um, wrong. Here we have the desire to use manipulation of word definitions to shift perceptions of morality. They learned well from the Soviet liars. Those on the political left can hardly complain, if any of them ever notice.

objectivefactsmatter

"Former President Bill Clinton actually did more to encourage Muslims to grapple with this application of their religion. In an interview, he blamed a “shame-based society” for the overreactions and said that Muslims should view such violence as a sign of insecurity about their faith."

While this is one of the gutsiest quotes to come from a Democrat about Islam in modern times, it hardly undoes the harm done by Clinton while sitting in the Whitehouse to legitimize Palestinian lies and liars. Clinton might be the global king of moral equivalence arguments that elevate Muslims to protected class…excluding the King of kings of all Muslim enablers, of course.

How does "moral equivalence" serve supremacists? It helps to cloak their moral deficits while rewarding bad behavior that should have been condemned. They don't seek moral equivalency, they wish to be *seen as morally equivalent* while attempting to enslave all others. After that, they won't be so much concerned about how you see or perceive them.